Authentic Leadership Structural Validity: Higher Education Staff Notion on Authentic Leadership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary leadership theory and practice describes authentic leadership (AL) in relation to self-awareness, relational transparency, internalized moral perspective, and balance processing of information (Walumbwa et al., 2008). A total of 580 academic, management and professional staffs were asked to rate the AL behaviours of their administrative heads using the rater version of authentic leadership questionnaire (Walumbwa et al., 2008). The present paper examines, if there are distinction among the measures of AL, if the latentvariables correlate with each other and then confirm the factor structure. Findings from Principal component Analysis (PCA) revealed the presence of three dimensions of AL -self-awareness, internalized moral perspective and relational transparency. The result also provides evidence that supports discriminant and convergent validity. We also present finding from the confirmatory factor analyses (CFA’s) which supports the adequacy of AL. The CFA’s Goodness of Fit Indices results reached acceptable level for some tested models. Based on the prior findings and the current findings we concluded that Walumbwa’s AL scales is an appropriate tool for assessing AL at a general level, though the extent of replication across population will be influenced by sampling characterization as espoused in this study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".